Race has no scientific/empirical basis. Asking about skin pigment is a different question, but race is BS
The Irish used to be a "race" unto themselves. Jewish people still are according to many people (I wonder if an Ethiopian Jew is of the Black race or the Jewish race?). Ukrainians were called their own race in my part of the world, Western Canada, during an immigration wave 100 years ago.
I suppose it's possible that all those old guys had it wrong and used "race" improperly, but we're doing it right now because we use skin tone as a proxy for race instead of other factors.
The purpose of race is social differentiation, not medical. That's why identifying himself as mongrel got the author in trouble. He was punking the social order. That's what needed to be upheld, not their data codes. Doubtful they would've grilled him for hours for writing an EBCDIC-incompatible circumflexed vowel in his surname.
That's also why identifying oneself as mixed-race can be problematic. People don't know where to place you in the pecking order, and if you're on their team. It's not like people are concerned for your health, "B-b-but if you put the wrong race you might get a contraindicated blood pressure medication in 30 years!!!"
For example, did you know a large male human will have a larger prostate, which itself will generate a larger PSA number than a "normal" human? This in and of itself, at a certain age, will cause some doctors to attempt to stick a needle assembly you know where to sample the prostate. If one just goes along with this statistical oddity, instead of demanding the other (more modern) tests out there, one could literally end up fighting a nasty infection, or worse a spread of cancer if it was actually found.
I would say fighting hidden biases is more frustrating that fighting obvious ones, but both need to be fought and fought well.
And anyways, is 4am morning or night? You'll get different answers in a city compared to on a farm, for example.
Do doctors ask this question in countries besides the US?
>Unlike sex, race is not firmly biologically based but rather is a “construct of human variability based on perceived differences in biology, physical appearance, and behavior” (IOM, 1999). According to Shields and colleagues (2005),
>>with the exception of the health disparities context, in which self-identified race remains a socially important metric, race should be avoided or used with caution and clarification, as its meaning encompasses both ancestry … and ethnicity …
>Both race and ethnicity can be potent predictors for disease risk; however, it is important to emphasize the distinction between correlation and causation and to explore interactions among factors, while rejecting a unidirectional model that moves from genotype to phenotype.
I still don't see anyone else offering evidence, including you